Impact of smoking status on the relative efficacy of the EGFR TKI/angiogenesis inhibitor combination therapy in advanced NSCLC-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The ETOP 10-16 BOOSTER trial failed to demonstrate a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for adding bevacizumab to osimertinib in second line. An exploratory subgroup analysis, however, suggested a PFS benefit of the combination in patients with a smoking history and prompted us to do this study.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effect of smoking status on the benefit of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy was carried out. All relevant randomized controlled trials appearing in main oncology congresses or in PubMed as of 1 November 2021 were used according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Primarily PFS according to smoking status, and secondarily overall survival (OS) were of interest. Pooled and interaction hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by fixed or random effects models, depending on the detected degree of heterogeneity. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2).

Results

Information by smoking was available for 1291 patients for PFS (seven studies) and 678 patients for OS (four studies). The risk of bias was low for all studies. Combination treatment significantly prolonged PFS for smokers [n = 502, HR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.69] but not for nonsmokers (n = 789, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.02). Similarly, a significant OS benefit was found for smokers (n = 271, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93) but not for nonsmokers (n = 407, HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.42; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.03).

Conclusion

In advanced EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy provides a statistically significant PFS and OS benefit in smokers, but not in non-smokers. The biological basis for this observation should be pursued and could determine whether this might be due to a specific co-mutational pattern produced by tobacco exposure.

•

Target population consists of EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

•

The relative effect of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor by smoking status was explored.

•

In patients with smoking history, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor provides significant PFS and OS benefit.

•

This is not the case in patients with a negative smoking history.

•

The biological basis for this observation should be pursued.

A randomised phase II study of osimertinib and bevacizumab versus osimertinib alone as second-line targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC with confirmed EGFR and acquired T790M mutations: the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 10-16) BOOSTER trial

BACKGROUND

While osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitising EGFR and acquired T790M mutations, progression inevitably occurs. The angiogenic pathway is implicated in EGFR TKI resistance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

BOOSTER is an open-label randomised phase II trial investigating the efficacy and safety of combined osimertinib 80 mg daily and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, versus osimertinib alone, in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and acquired T790M mutations after failure on previous EGFR TKI therapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Between May 2017 and February 2019, 155 patients were randomised (combination: 78; osimertinib: 77). At data cut-off of 22 February 2021, median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range (IQR): 26.5-37.6 months] and 129 (83.2%) PFS events were reported in the intention-to-treat population. There was no difference in median PFS between the combination [15.4 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-18.0 months] and osimertinib arm (12.3 months; 95% CI 6.2-17.2 months; stratified log-rank P = 0.83), [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.37]. Median OS was 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-32.1 months) in the combination arm and 24.3 months (95% CI 16.9-37.0 months) in the osimertinib arm (stratified log-rank P = 0.91), (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.56). Exploratory analysis revealed a significant interaction of smoking history with treatment for PFS (adjusted P = 0.0052) with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.90) for smokers, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.92-2.33) for never smokers. ORR was 55% in both arms and the median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the combination than in the osimertinib arm, 8.2 months versus 10.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0074). Safety of osimertinib and bevacizumab was consistent with previous reports with grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) reported in 47% and 18% of patients on combination and osimertinib alone, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were more common in patients on combination.

ICORG 10-14: NEOadjuvant trial in Adenocarcinoma of the oEsophagus and oesophagoGastric junction International Study (Neo-AEGIS)

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly the standard of care in the management of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and junction (AEG). In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the MAGIC regimen of pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, and the CROSS regimen of preoperative chemotherapy combined with radiation, were superior to surgery only in RCTs that included AEG but were not powered on this cohort. No completed RCT has directly compared neoadjuvant or perioperative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The Neo-AEGIS trial, uniquely powered on AEG, and including comprehensive modern staging, compares both these regimens.

METHODS

This open label, multicentre, phase III RCT randomises patients (cT2-3, N0-3, M0) in a 1:1 fashion to receive CROSS protocol (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy, 41.4Gy/23Fr, over 5 weeks). The power calculation is a 10% difference in favour of CROSS, powered at 80%, two-sided alpha level of 0.05, requiring 540 patients to be evaluable, 594 to be recruited if a 10% dropout is included (297 in each group). The primary endpoint is overall survival, with a minimum 3-year follow up. Secondary endpoints include: disease free survival, recurrence rates, clinical and pathological response rates, toxicities of induction regimens, post-operative pathology and tumour regression grade, operative in-hospital complications, and health-related quality of life. The trial also affords opportunities for establishing a bio-resource of pre-treatment and resected tumour, and translational research.

DISCUSSION

This RCT directly compares two established treatment regimens, and addresses whether radiation therapy positively impacts on overall survival compared with a standard perioperative chemotherapy regimen Sponsor: Irish Clinical Research Group (ICORG).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01726452 . Protocol 10-14. Date of registration 06/11/2012.

Patient preference: a comparison of electronic patient-completed questionnaires with paper among cancer patients

In this study, we compared cancer patients preference for computerised (tablet/web-based) surveys versus paper. We also assessed whether the understanding of a cancer-related topic, pharmacogenomics is affected by the survey format, and examined differences in demographic and medical characteristics which may affect patient preference and understanding. Three hundred and four cancer patients completed a tablet-administered survey and another 153 patients completed a paper-based survey. Patients who participated in the tablet survey were questioned regarding their preference for survey format administration (paper, tablet and web-based). Understanding was assessed with a 'direct' method, by asking patients to assess their understanding of genetic testing, and with a 'composite' score. Patients preferred administration with tablet (71%) compared with web-based (12%) and paper (17%). Patients <65 years old, non-Caucasians and white-collar professionals significantly preferred the computerised format following multivariate analysis. There was no significant difference in understanding between the paper and tablet survey with direct questioning or composite score. Age (<65 years) and white-collar professionals were associated with increased understanding (both P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in understanding between the tablet and print survey in a multivariate analysis. Patients overwhelmingly preferred computerised surveys and understanding of pharmacogenomics was not affected by survey format.